# People v. Williams

> California Supreme Court · August 12, 1999 · 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 412

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9542462

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES THOMAS WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 12, 1999
- **Citations:** 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 412; 21 Cal. 4th 335; 99 Daily Journal DAR 8299; 981 P.2d 42; 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6491; 1999 Cal. LEXIS 5306
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Kennard
- **Judges:** Chin, Kennard, Brown
- **Cited by:** 110 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Limited by People v. Meza, 251 Cal. Rptr. 3d 250 (2019).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9542462

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “[i]f the [appellate] court cannot determine from the available record whether the action is barred, it should ... remand for a hearing”
- discussing prior decisions and stating that "[plrinciples of stare decisis alone caution against swinging from one extreme{-a criminal statute of limitations is jurisdictional-Jto another[-it can be inadvertently forfeited]"
- declining to rule on whether the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, but rejecting the government’s contention that the defense would be automatically waived if not raised

## Opinion text

KENNARD, J., Dissenting.
Deciding an issue left unresolved in Cowan v. Superior Court (1996) 14 Cal.4th 367 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 458 , 926 P.2d 438 ], the majority holds that a criminal defendant claiming the statute of limitations has expired on a charged offense may assert the claim at any time, even as late as on appeal after conviction, as defendant did here. I disagree.
In Cowan , I joined Justice Brown’s concurring and dissenting opinion which, consistent with the prevailing trend in other jurisdictions and for “sound practical and public policy reasons,” concluded that the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense. (Cowan v. Superior Court, supra, 14 Cal.4th at pp. 387, 389 (conc. and dis. opn. of Brown, J.).) The defense is forfeited if not asserted before or at trial (thus allowing the prosecution a fair opportunity to respond). (Id. at p. 384.)
I would apply that reasoning to this case and hold that defendant failed to timely assert his claim and therefore may not now raise it.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9542462. Public record. Not legal advice.